Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Is this within GitHub's mission? (Score 1) 575

Who is more respectful, 1) The guy who is honest, even when it offends some women? 2) The guy who hides his true opinion in order to 'have a quality relationship'?

If his opinion is not respectful, neither of these hypothetical men are respectful or respectable. Sexist assholes are sexist assholes, whether or not they conceal their sexism.

That said, the purported "research" is gibberish, and I hope it is satire in and of itself. If it's not, then it deserves at least some gentle mockery. I don't know if "C Plus Equality" does that well, or if it's just juvenile dick jokes, but a self-publishing platform (which is what Github boils down to) shouldn't be in the business of making value judgments.

Comment Re:Free speech (Score 1) 598

The British (and the Europeans) have perfectly adequate laws against hate-speech

There is no such thing as an "adequate" law against any content of speech. Censorship is obscene. It's a shame that many British (and Europeans, and some Americans) don't understand that when you threaten someone at gunpoint (which is what an arrest is) for the content of their speech, you're doing thing much more evil than any speech can be.

Comment Re:Posted by a typical American? (Score 1) 598

...isn't it a bit pretentious for somebody not a citizen or residing within a given country to tell them they need to work at making their laws more like your own?

Boy, it sure was pretentious of citizens of other countries to tell South Africa that it should let Nelson Mandela out of jail and end apartheid. Or citizens of counties outside of China to express disappointment over the whole tank think in Tienanmen Square. Or, you know, the Holocaust, wasn't that an internal matter for German law to decide?

Seriously? Is that the argument you're making?

Comment Re:Absolute Defense (Score 1) 258

Money is certainly "political expression" when used to pay for political expression.

No, there is nothing "certain" about that assertion.

Money used for political purposes is bribery. There is no difference between "I will give you X dollars if you vote for bill Y" and "I will buy your campaign X dollars worth of advertising if you vote for bill Y." And there is no effective difference between "I will buy your campaign X dollars worth of advertising if you vote for bill Y" and "I'm thinking of buying your campaign X dollars worth of advertising. By the way, bill Y is cool. Wink wink nudge nudge," which is more or less the state of American politics today.

Where do you draw the line, without outright censorship of some means of political expression?

Even if outlawing bribery were getting close to censorship, I have no problem with censoring the fsck out of for-profit corporations. They have no rights, and by definition their only possible interest in speech is to improve their bottom line. Google, BP, Halliburton, whoever, shut your piehole. Real people are talking.

Comment Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... (Score 1) 1251

...the atheist "thumpers" were one of the great scourges of human life in the last 100 years.

Really? Do tell how promoting non-belief in god(s) was such a great scourge.

âoeAtheism is indeed the most daring of all dogmas . . . for it is the assertion of a universal negative.â - G. K. Chesterton

No more "daring" than the assertion of the universal negative to the existence of invisible pink unicorns.

Chesterton was a good writer. Shame that his views on religion were so childish.

Comment Re:Finally! (Score 3, Interesting) 72

The only down side is that you would have an actual phone used for talking to other people with phones, rather than disgruntled avian simulator. Some folks consider that to be a problem.

The Yota will let you display a map, a book, or other useful stuff on its e-ink display.

The Fone apparently couldn't even display SMS messages properly.

Sorry if I missed a joke, but if you're serious, there's no comparison.

If someone made a phone like the Yota in a slider format (or some other way to get a keyboard in there), I could be all over it.

Comment Re:The long-term view (Score 2) 287

If someone steals your digital coins, they may end up virtually (ha!) anywhere, with little or no chance of ever find them again.

Yes. That's the way cash works. It's a consequence of anonymity. The answer to it is, don't leave your cash where it can get stolen. If your system doesn't allow for unattended tokens to be stolen, don't call it digital cash.

Bitcoin is the most useless thing ever. It's not as good as cash for anonymity, not as good as credit cards for acceptance. It's the dot-com stock of the 2010s.

Comment Re:just leave (Score 1) 845

Because unless there is a physical barrier, you're already being recorded by people's smart phones, which are also HD camcorders and video phones.

If someone is using a smart phone or more traditional format camera to record me, it will be obviously pointed at me. I will approach them and we will have words. It would be a deliberate act and probably an obvious one.

If someone is covertly recording me, of course, I will not see it, but if such video is ever published, we will have words in court. And if they should fail to successfully hide their surveillance -- the camera falls out of their purse, whatever -- they run the risk of having both their property and their person damaged, a significant disincentive to engage in such recording.

However, if someone with a wearable camera has failed to have the common courtesy to remove it when entering an establishment, it is not obvious whether they are recording me, and they could be recording me without intent, merely because they (for some brain-damaged reason) record everything. It is a substantially different case, and apologies for rude use of wearables that are based on the ubiquity of camera-phones are not not valid.

Comment Re:just leave (Score 1) 845

it's that cameras are getting so small and integrated that such bans are pointless. In a few years, everybody will carry body-mounted cameras everywhere. You might as well get used to it now.

No, they won't. If cameras become that ubiquitous, so will camera detectors and jammers, as well as lawsuits about the publication of photographs without signed releases.

Comment Re:just leave (Score 1) 845

Surveillance is what governments do. You're not "the anti-surveillance crowd", you're the "anti-photography crowd". And photography in public places is perfectly OK in our society, and that includes restaurants.

First, video is not the same as photography.

Second, surveillance is not limited to government action but means only "the act of carefully watching someone or something especially in order to prevent or detect a crime". Photography or video need not be done by the state to be surveillance.

Third, restaurants are not public places. In fact the blog to which you link acknowledges to authority of business managers to ban photography on the premises.

My life is a creative work: my choice of dress, my manner of movement, my speech, everything I do is a . Photographs or videos of me in any but the most incidental manner (i.e., I happen to be walking down the street and you capture me in a street scene) are derivatives of that work. I do not grant Google any license to make or distribute such derivative works.

As Steve Mann put it, surveillance is theft.

But all in all, I suspect law won't be willing to address this, and we apparently can't rely on people doing the right thing on their own. We need ubiquitous jammers. Just cheap laser pointers could be an effective means to deal with "glassholes".

Slashdot Top Deals

Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is too dark to read.